Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 9798% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

The more carbon that gets released into the atmosphere, the higher the average temperature rises.

That's a scientific fact.

Human activities, such as driving, flying, building and even turning on the lights, are the biggest contributor to the release of carbon.

That too, is a fact.

And yet the majority of Republicans running for House and Senate seats this year disagree.

Ken Buck, the GOP senate candidate in Colorado admits he's a climate change denier. Ron Johnson, who leads in the polls of Wisconsin's senatorial race, has said that "it is far more likely that [climate change] is just sunspot activity or something just in the geologic eons of time where we have changes in the climate."

And when Christine O'Donnell, the Republican candidate for Senate in Delaware, was asked whether human activity contributes to global warming, she said, "I don't have an opinion on that."

Conservatives in Congress are turning against the science behind climate change. That means if Republicans take control this November, there's little hope for climate change policy.

Today's climate change denial trend isn't new. Years ago, when President George W. Bush was in the White House, scientific data on climate change was censored, and some scientists and top-level policymakers resigned in protest.

Scientific Findings Dismissed

For 10 years, Rick Piltz worked as a senior official for the Global Change Research Program the main governmental office that gathers scientific data on climate change carried out by U.S. researchers.

Quote:

"It was an office where the world of science collided with the world of climate politics," Piltz tells NPR's Guy Raz.

In the spring of 2001, Piltz was putting together a major report for Congress. The report would include clear evidence that tied carbon emissions to a rapid shift in global temperatures.

Quote:

Piltz says his team was told "to delete the pages that summarized the findings of the IPCC report. To delete the material about the National Assessment of climate change impacts that had just come out."

The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is the international body that collects climate research from countries around the world. The National Assessment was a similar report that covered research from U.S.-based scientists. In both cases, the result was conclusive: Climate change was happening and human activity was speeding it up.

But the Bush White House didn't buy it.

Quote:

"The expertise had come together to make pretty clear and compelling statements, and to say that you didn't believe it was to say that you didn't want to go along with the preponderance of scientific evidence," Piltz says.

The science was being politicized. Over the next four years, almost every report Piltz and his team put out was heavily edited. References to climate change or carbon emissions were altered or even deleted.

By 2005, Piltz couldn't take it anymore. He resigned and told his story to The New York Times.

A Conservative Who Spoke Up And Paid The Price

It's a big deal for Republicans in Congress to say they believe that humans are heating the planet.

Quote:

"People look at you like you've grown an extra head or something," says Rep. Bob Inglis, a Republican from South Carolina.

Inglis has represented South Carolina's 4th District for the last 12 years, but this one will be his last.

In June, Inglis lost the primary bid to Tea Party-backed Republican candidate Trey Gowdy, who accused him of not being conservative enough.

For the longest time, Inglis says, education, health care issues and the environment have been Democratic issues, while taxes and national security have been Republican issues. Inglis says that's not right.

Quote:

"As a Republican, I believe we should be talking about conservation, because that's our heritage. If you go back to Teddy Roosevelt, that's who we are."

Inglis paid the price for speaking out about the importance of conservation and climate change.

Quote:

He admits he may have "committed other heresies," such as voting for TARP and against the troop surge. "But the most enduring problem I had, the one that really was difficult, was just saying that climate change was real and let's do something about it."

Inglis, who also voted no on cap-and-trade, tried to make climate change palatable for conservatives. He proposed a revenue-neutral tax swap: Payroll taxes would be reduced and the amount of that reduction would be applied as a tax on carbon dioxide emissions mainly hitting coal plants and natural gas facilities.

Quote:

Inglis also tried to connect the issue of climate change with the issue of national security. "We are dependent on a region of the world that doesn't like us very much for oil. We need to change the game there."

Inglis even stressed the need to hold the oil and coal companies accountable for their environmental practices.

Accountability, he says, "is a very bedrock conservative concept even a biblical concept."

Even though Inglis won't be coming back to the Hill to serve another term, he hasn't lost hope in climate change policy. The choice, Inglis says, is clear.

Quote:

"Do we play to our strengths? Or do we continue to play to our weakness which is playing the oil game."

Tackling Climate Change Takes Both The Left And The Right

Bill McKibben, scholar in residence at Middlebury College in Vermont and the founder of 350.org, says it is a tragedy that conservatives are turning their back on the science behind climate change.

Quote:

"On this issue maybe more than most, we need that interplay of liberal and conservative," he says. "Liberals are good at sort of pointing the way forward in kind of progressive new directions and conservatives are good at providing the anchor that says human nature won't go along with that. That back and forth has been very useful."

If Republicans take control of the House this November, McKibben says, he doesn't see a future for climate change policy.

Quote:

"Look, the Democrats with a huge majority couldn't pass climate change legislation even of a very, very weak variety this year, so I doubt there'll be any action over the next two years."

That is, unless conservatives decide to team up with liberals.

Quote:

"We desperately need conservatives at the forefront of the fight," McKibben says. "The sooner that conservatives are willing to accept the science, the reality, the sooner we can get to work with their very important help in figuring out what set of prescriptions, what combination of market and regulation will be required in order to deal wihttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130776747th the most serious problem we've ever stumbled into."

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

California is the nation's largest dairy state, which means that while cows there produce a lot of milk, they also produce something else methane gas.

And methane is a powerful contributor to climate change.

Some farmers, at a great up-front cost, are capturing the gas and using it to create renewable electricity for their farms. But by solving one environmental problem, they're running headlong into another.

Double-Edged Sword

For nearly 100 years, John Fiscalini's family has run a dairy farm in California's Central Valley.

And like any other cows, the ones on Fiscalini's farm produce a lot of manure about 100 pounds a day.

That manure fuels some cutting-edge technology. Every few hours, it's flushed, washed out of the barn and collected in large concrete tanks nearby. The tanks trap methane gas that's released from the manure.

Quote:

"The gas bubbles up to the top, and there is a pipe that basically comes from each of the two tanks," Fiscalini says.

The pipe goes to a nearby generator, which looks like a massive car engine. And the generator uses the gas to produce electricity enough electricity to run the whole farm.

Quote:

"Our farm is completely renewable in the fact that we don't buy electricity from outside sources," Fiscalini says.

But this is where his problems started. Like any combustion engine, his generator produces air pollution, which contributes to smog. So, even though the digester is reducing one kind of pollution greenhouse gases it's contributing to another smog, which state air officials are trying to prevent. [FT Comment: Exhaust should be CO2 and H2O, that are not components of SMOG. Incomplete combustion would yield CO or carbon monoxide which is a component of SMOG. Just ensure that there is complete combustion. In carbon out put there is a 1:1 input to out put ratio. One carbon from CH4 to one carbon CO2---which is worse methane or CO2?]

Air Quality Before Climate Change

After having spent $4 million on his digester, Fiscalini had to add a $200,000 pollution control device. He thinks his experience has discouraged other dairies from investing in digesters.

Quote:

"There [are] not many people who wish to follow in my footsteps and build something like this given the fact that they are not economical to build and operate, and most importantly, there will be two agencies that will be all over you," Fiscalini says.

Being asked to spend money to control pollutants is not an unusual thing to hear from any industry, says Dave Warner, who works for one of those agencies the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

Warner says air pollution here is consistently higher than federal law allows, and asthma rates are among the state's highest. And although California has set some ambitious climate change goals, he says those goals shouldn't come at the cost of air quality.

Quote:

"It's been recognized from day one," Warner says. "There should not be sacrifices made to the protection of public health in interest of reduction of greenhouse gases."

Two other air districts in California have followed San Joaquin Valley and set similar pollution controls, which is good for local air quality, but it leaves farmers back where they started.

"Good intentions but bad result," says Allen Dusault of Sustainable Conservation, an environmental group in San Francisco. He says interest in digester projects has waned, especially given the financial downturn.

Quote:

"We had a lot of private capital looking to come in and build these systems," he says. "And I used to get several calls a week asking me about the different technologies and about the different companies. And today I get almost none."

Digesters A 'Tough Sell' In California

Dusault says dairy states like Wisconsin and New York are building digesters at a much faster rate than California because those states don't face the same regulations. He says to get things moving again, affordable pollution control technology will need to be developed.

Fiscalini agrees that until that happens, the business case for a dairy digester is a tough sell.

Quote:

"I really believe it is the right thing to do," Fiscalini says. "It simply needs to be made more available to the masses. The current series of laws that we have don't make digesters profitable."

California state air officials are now taking a look at how dairy digesters are regulated.

Over the last five years, sea level rise rates have significantly declined, from 3.5 mm/year to 2.0 mm/year. Identical to the rise rate for the last century.

Your Earlier Post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Sea Level Falling In 2010
Quote:
We are constantly being told that 2010 is the hottest year ever, and that the polar ice caps are melting down at a record rate. Dr. Hansen tells us to expect 3-6+ metres of sea level rise this century. That would be a minimum of 30 mm/year.
Quote:
Only problem is, since the start of the hottest year ever, sea level has fallen 10 mm.

My response to yours:

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

The data doesn't support your contention. Appears long term sea levels on the rise.

Since August 1992 the satellite altimeters have been measuring sea level on a global basis with unprecedented accuracy. The TOPEX/POSEIDON (T/P) satellite mission provided observations of sea level change from 1992 until 2005. ason-1, launched in late 2001 as the successor to T/P, continues this record by providing an estimate of global mean sea level every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3-4 mm. The latest mean sea level time series and maps of regional sea level change can be found on this site. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/wizard.php

"We are told sea level is rising and will soon swamp all of our cities. Everybody knows that the Pacific island of Tuvalu is sinking. Around 1990 it became obvious the local tide-gauge did not agree - there was no evidence of 'sinking.' So scientists at Flinders University, Adelaide, set up new, modern, tide-gauges in 12 Pacific islands. Recently, the whole project was abandoned as there was no sign of a change in sea level at any of the 12 islands for the past 16 years." (Vincent Gray).

The Reality:

Quote:

Sea levels are measured by a variety of methods that show close agreement - sediment cores, tidal gauges, satellite measurements. What they find is sea level rise has been steadily accelerating over the past century.

A common error in climate debate is*drawing conclusions from narrow pieces of data while neglecting the whole picture. A good example is the recent claim that sea level rise is slowing. The data cited is satellite altimeter measurements of*global mean sea level over the past 16 years (Figure 1). The 60 day smoothed average (blue line) seems to indicate*sea level* peaked around the start of 2006. So one might argue that sea levels haven't risen for 3 years. Could one conclude that the long term trend in sea level rise has ended?

Global mean sea level (eg - the global average height of the ocean) has typically been calculated from tidal gauges. Tide gauges measure the height of the sea surface relative to coastal benchmarks.*The problem with this is the height of the land is not always constant. Tectonic movements can alter it, as well as Glacial Isostatic Adjustment. This is*where land which was formerly pressed down by massive ice sheets, rebounds now that the ice sheets are gone.

To construct a global historical record of sea levels, tide gauge records are taken from locations away from plate boundaries and*subject to little isostatic rebound. This has been done in A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise (Church 2006)*which reconstructs global sea level rise from tide gauges across the globe. An updated version of the sea level plot is displayed in Figure 3:

Tidal estimates from sediment cores go even further back to the 1300's. They find sea level rise is close to zero in the early part of the sedimentary record. They then observe an acceleration in*sea-level rise during the 19th and early 20th century. Over the period where the two datasets overlap, there is good agreement between sedimentary records and tidal gauge data (Donnelly 2004, Gehrels 2006).

What we're most interested in is the long term trends. Figure*[4] shows 20 year trends from the tidal data. From 1880 to the early 1900's, sea level was rising at around 1mm per year. Throughout most of the 20th century, sea levels have been rising at around 2mm per year. In the latter 20th century, it's reached 3mm per year. The five most recent 20-year trends also happen to be the highest values.

Figure 4: The linear trends in sea level over 20-year periods, with one sigma error on the trend estimates shown by the dotted lines. From 1963 to 1991, there were a series of volcanic eruptions which caused cooling and hence contraction of the upper ocean. This temporarily slowed the rate of sea level rise.

So a broader view of the historical record reveals that sea level is not just rising. The rate of sea level rise has been increasing since the late 19th century.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

Add more profanity next time, Mumbo. You just might get through to me that way.

As I have stated before, I am posting links to information that I believe casts serious doubt on the claims of the Anthropogenic Global Warming zealots.

Read them, or don't. Believe them, or don't.

Post what you feel are good rebuttals and try to debunk the information, or post meaningless, profanity-laced rants. Or don't.

More profanity?

TITS BALLS ANUS BOLLOCKS TWATS

START A DASHED BLOG, MY GOOD SIR.

This is not your blog. This is a forum. If you want a climate denier aggregator, start your own climate denier aggregator and stop bumping this thread with horsehit from climate denial blogs. Fine Tunes debunks it and you ignore him again and again, so you don't want to discuss, you just want to post, so you should start a blog. That's what you should do.

Not enough profanity. Maybe you should engage in personal attacks, too. That might work.

Profanity? Yes, I can see why you might level that criticism at me (I used the words tits, balls, anus, cunts and cuntsticks, yes, my apologies.)

But personal attacks? Where? Is pointing out that this is a forum and not a blog a personal attack? Where is the personal attack? This really is a forum, it really isn't a blog, and you really do ignore Fine Tunes when he debunks the links you post.

Oh, by the way, I think you should start a blog, because this is something you are clearly very passionate about, and the world really needs more climate denial blogs to cope with the overwhelming, interdigitating, cross-corroborative and stringently cross-checked evidence that man-made climate change is real.

You could also start an intelligent design blog, if you like, or a 'cigarettes are really safe' blog, or a 'banks aren't greedy blog'. The world really needs more of those, too.

Or maybe I can just keep posting links to relevant information in this thread and you can ignore them.

You see, when it comes to climate change, I prefer to trust the data and the experts in the field. The problem is, that anyone willing to look beneath the surface will realize that there is no "scientific consensus" regarding the anthropogenic aspect of climate change, and that there are peer-reviewed studies being released all the time that question, challenge, or directly refute claims being made by the Anthropogenic Global Warming zealots.

I have stated repeatedly that I am in favor of doing more with less and protecting our environment for future generations, and I have already taken steps within my small sphere of influence to do my part.

But that is not enough for the AGW zealots. It is extremely important to them that I embrace their belief that humanity is destroying the planet by farting too much. That makes it easier for them to impose regulations and controls on the economy, what products and services we can and cannot purchase, etc.

I am not a scientist, but I have always considered the words "scientist" and "skeptic" to be synonymous. And it is disturbing to me that you and others would rather stifle debate on this subject than consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, there is some merit to what AGW skeptics are saying.

Or maybe I can just keep posting links to relevant information in this thread and you can ignore them.

You seem to find the concept of a forum problematic.

If you look on the previous page, you will see that you post twelve links in separate posts to climate denial blogs.

Fine Tunes debunks several.

And you ignore him. I think you spend two or three posts on him, and only one is longer than a single line.

So what you really should do is start a blog. Start a climate denial blog, and turn the comments off. Youre not interested in discussion. We can tell this because you dont defend any of your posts.

Start a blog. Turn the comments off. A forum has a reply button so people can engage in debate with you. If youre not interested in what people have to say, I think a blog would be better for you, and you could stop bumping this thread.

A forum also has an ignore feature. Which I am now employing in your case. Good day.

'Good day'!

And a happy 1899 to you, too, my good sir!

Remember: If you run into someone articulate and patient enough to explain to you things you don't like in a way that they become unavoidable, do what I do: simply pretend that Victoria is still Queen of England and ignore it.

jg, I noticed that you often use Watts Up With That as a source for your comments about Global Warming issues. I used to be a skeptic about the truth about Global Warming, however the accumulating amount of evidence makes it clear that man has had an impact upon Global Warming. While it is true that climate is cyclic, you can't deny from even the information that you posted that man has increased the intensity of climate change. We cannot deny the amount of carbon emissions and of other green house gases have increased through man's activities.

What damage would occur if we make every effort to reduce the amount of emissions that we spew into the atmosphere? If you have kept track of some of my post on this thread, I have pointed out that we are loosing the ability of the earth to absorb the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses through deforestation and loss of coral reefs, etc.

I have to admit that not all of the science out there is perfect. There are people writing articles that are poorly researched, are due to poor methods or conclusions, but the over all science out there supports that man has had an impact.

Watts Up With That does not support many of his conclusions. I have been able to find science that disputes many of his claims. If you read the articles that are supported with data and are supported by other researchers, you should realize that Watt's science is flawed.

Peter Sinclair, producer of the well-known "Climate Crock of the Week" video series, posted a video debunking weatherman Anthony Watts, who runs a Climate Denier Den also known as his Watt's Up With That blog.

The video was auto-scrubbed by YouTube after Watts claimed the video broke YouTube's copyright rules. The video has since been reviewed by a number of US copyright experts and (big surprise) there appears to be nothing that could be construed as anything but fair use.

This whole situation has raised the ire of even some of the more ardent commenters on DeSmogBlog (the site I manage) who normally disagree with pretty much everything we say on the site. One such commenter, Rick James wrote:

Quote:

"I have to admit it doesn't look good for the skeptic side when something gets scrubbed like this. Watts loses some stature here unless he can post something convincing about why he did it on his blog. Silence won't get it done."

One could speculate that Watts had a problem with the clips Sinclair used of Watts being interviewed by Glenn Beck on Fox News (Watts formerly worked as a weatherman for a Fox News affiliate), but that would be pretty weak given that Watts has no problem excerpting large swaths of print articles like this one posted tonight from the BBC on his own website.

As I have asked on two posts here on Huffington Post and on DeSmog: tell me Mr. Watts, what part of this video is it that gives you the right to have it removed from the public discourse on climate change? You can email me at desmogblog [at] gmail [dot] com.

TITS 1. A titmouse.
2. Any of various small, similar or related birds.
adj. New England & Upstate New York
Small; undersized.
With these definitions this word cannot be construed as profanity

BALLS pl of ball def
noun
1.
a spherical or approximately spherical body or shape; sphere: He rolled the piece of paper into a ball.
2.
a round or roundish body, of various sizes and materials, either hollow or solid, for use in games, as baseball, football, tennis, or golf.
3.
a game played with a ball, esp. baseball: The boys are out playing ball.
Again, not necessarily profanity.

ANUS n. pl. a·nus·es
The opening at the lower end of the alimentary canal through which solid waste is eliminated from the body. Also called anal orifice, fundament.

This is not your blog. This is a forum. If you want a climate denier aggregator, start your own climate denier aggregator and stop bumping this thread with [equine poop] from climate denial blogs. Fine Tunes debunks it and you ignore him again and again, so you don't want to discuss, you just want to post, so you should start a blog. That's what you should do.

Sorry MJ you have to remember that children might be reading this.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

jg, I noticed that you often use Watts Up With That as a source for your comments about Global Warming issues. I used to be a skeptic about the truth about Global Warming, however the accumulating amount of evidence makes it clear that man has had an impact upon Global Warming. While it is true that climate is cyclic, you can't deny from even the information that you posted that man has increased the intensity of climate change. We cannot deny the amount of carbon emissions and of other green house gases have increased through man's activities.

What damage would occur if we make every effort to reduce the amount of emissions that we spew into the atmosphere? If you have kept track of some of my post on this thread, I have pointed out that we are loosing the ability of the earth to absorb the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses through deforestation and loss of coral reefs, etc.

I have to admit that not all of the science out there is perfect. There are people writing articles that are poorly researched, are due to poor methods or conclusions, but the over all science out there supports that man has had an impact.

FineTunes, I totally respect your opinion and I do understand where you are coming from, here.

Regarding Watts, attempts have been made to discredit just about anyone and everyone who is asking questions and expressing skepticism regarding the beliefs of the anthropogenic global warming alarmists. Watts is no exception. Discredit the person asking the questions and challenging the AGW alarmist claims and everything he/she says is irrelevant, right?

Wrong.

I don't care who is asking the questions or why they are asking them, as long as the questions get asked. That is what science is all about. And unfortunately meaningful debate on the issue of AGW has been largely avoided and shut down by the AGW alarmists.

We're hearing things like "the science is settled" and "consensus" and that no further debate is required, when the reality is quite the opposite. If there's anything I've learned as I've looked into this for myself, it's that the more we know about the earth's climate, the more we know we don't know.

Of course man has an impact. I have never claimed otherwise. Where we disagree is the extent of the impact, what action is required to mitigate that impact (if any action is required at all), and to what extent governments should be involved in that action.

jg, I noticed that you often use Watts Up With That as a source for your comments about Global Warming issues.

FT, why would you engage in a the logical fallacy of shooting the messenger? Some complaint about YouTube improperly enforcing copyright claims in no form or fashion invalidates scientific claims. Nor does "consensus" or any of the other diversionary measures attempted. Perhaps if proper counterpoints were put forward, they would be addressed, but seriously, your claim here amounts to, a website made a video about another website, and the one guy we give some cred to on that website that attempts to refute that other website still said the removal of the video we made was a bunch of nonsense.

Um.... actually all that stuff is the nonsense and none of it is science.

Quote:

What damage would occur if we make every effort to reduce the amount of emissions that we spew into the atmosphere? If you have kept track of some of my post on this thread, I have pointed out that we are loosing the ability of the earth to absorb the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses through deforestation and loss of coral reefs, etc.

First words have definitions and when you change those definitions, there has to be good cause and when there isn't, you have to be skeptical and truly investigate the claims.

Now most people readily admit that there are things we produce that are pollutants. They are not natural. They are synthetic and they have negative effects on the natural actions within this planet. However carbon dioxide is a natural part of the environment. It is not artificial. The same criteria that is used to justify it as a pollutant would also make water vapor from hydrogen cars a pollutant. That criteria is, we think there was this much in the air before we started doing this. There is more now. We are using some form or proto-science to project an outcome related to that difference, and now that difference and what causes it are bad.

FYI, we do call oil based fuels HYDROCARBONS and I've never once heard anyone attempt to deal with all the water we put into the air related to the use of it. This becomes even more interesting when you see most global warming models ignoring or dealing badly with water vapor.

Common properties of hydrocarbons are the facts that they produce steam, carbon dioxide and heat during combustion and that oxygen is required for combustion to take place. The simplest hydrocarbon, methane, burns as follows:

Every gallon of fuel we burn puts water vapor into the air. It puts more water vapor into the air than it ever puts CO2 into the air. Look at almost all climate models and see what they avoid like the plague... water vapor.

How can you give credence to something that ignores water vapor or doesn't account for it? It's well above half of the equation here.

Quote:

I have to admit that not all of the science out there is perfect. There are people writing articles that are poorly researched, are due to poor methods or conclusions, but the over all science out there supports that man has had an impact.

Zero impact shouldn't be the goal. We exist and live on this planet. We are allowed to have an impact on it. The goal of environmentalism used to be to manage our resources. Now the goal is to disappear.

Watts Up With That does not support many of his conclusions. I have been able to find science that disputes many of his claims. If you read the articles that are supported with data and are supported by other researchers, you should realize that Watt's science is flawed.[/QUOTE]

Everything you've posted is people's opinions about whether a video should have been scrubbed from YouTube. That would be no different than me citing you on Huffington Post as proof of something. It is still hearsay. It is still opinion.

FineTunes, I totally respect your opinion and I do understand where you are coming from, here.

Regarding Watts, attempts have been made to discredit just about anyone and everyone who is asking questions and expressing skepticism regarding the beliefs of the anthropogenic global warming alarmists. Watts is no exception. Discredit the person asking the questions and challenging the AGW alarmist claims and everything he/she says is irrelevant, right?

Wrong.

I don't care who is asking the questions or why they are asking them, as long as the questions get asked. That is what science is all about. And unfortunately meaningful debate on the issue of AGW has been largely avoided and shut down by the AGW alarmists.

First you should care who is asking the questions. Goes to credibility. If some guy dressed as Chicken Little came up to you to inform you that the sky is falling or AGW is happening---would you believe it? You have to weigh the evidence that has been presented. You weigh the sources of the information and evaluate the data, the methods used and the conclusions.

If I can refute from credible sources most of what you have posted arguing against AGW, then I move the argument closer to proving that there is sufficient evidence to prove that AGW is true.

Most of the sources you cite refuting the growing amount of evidence for AGW comes from few sources that are definitely biased against AGW. Most of these sources you've used are easily refutable and are not credible after being refuted time and time again. If your sources are refuted time and time again, then are they not less credible?
I know that there are some poorly researched papers out there, but in time these papers are not accepted by the scientific communityie peer review . But you can't use these papers to then prove that AGW research is based upon bad science without consideration of the many papers that indicate AGW is real.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

We're hearing things like "the science is settled" and "consensus" and that no further debate is required, when the reality is quite the opposite. If there's anything I've learned as I've looked into this for myself, it's that the more we know about the earth's climate, the more we know we don't know.

Yes, the science is not totally settled yet. There are still questions of the total impact of Global Warming or Climate Change will have on the weather patterns. I have posted some papers discussing the consequences regarding the spread of tropical disease into more temperate regions. One of the things about science is that with each step taken, there are more questions raised. But as you move forward, you leave behind a growing amount of evidence and knowledge.

The growing consensus is that AGW happening and this is being supported by a growing amount of evidence that cannot be denied.

As I stated earlier, I used to be a skeptic, however by reviewing the amount of evidence ie scientific articles, AGW is real---it may not be all due to CO2, but definitely there's a human connection. You can include deforestation, pollution, green house gases, impacts to whole ecosystems, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Of course man has an impact. I have never claimed otherwise. Where we disagree is the extent of the impact, what action is required to mitigate that impact (if any action is required at all), and to what extent governments should be involved in that action.

Glad that we can agree that man has had an impact. What needs to be done is to lessen man's footprints on Global Warming. This can be done by drastically reducing the amount of carbon emissions, stop deforestation, lessen other impacts---if for no other reason than being good stewards and leaving to future generations a better world.

IMHO, one of this issues that you believe is that because climate change is cyclic, the current patterns disprove that AGW is happening. One of the papers you cite is that CO2 only contributes 35% to Global Warming---don't ask me to go back to this there are over 60 pages here, but this is significant. So not all of the warming trend is due to CO2, some is due to the cyclic change, but reducing that 35% by reducing carbon emissions will reduce the amount of Global Warming. What we don't know is what are the impacts of other greenhouse gases, but reducing these will lessen any possible impacts as well.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey

With all due respect, FineTunes, you're repeating yourself. I acknowledge everything you have stated. But I disagree with you.

I am still not convinced that CO2 is a pollutant, that it has a negative impact on climate, and that governments must take extreme measures to regulate it. There are still too many questions that have not been answered in any conclusive way.

But note how the focus of the AGW alarmists has changed over this past decade. First, it was all about "Anthropogenic Global Warming". But reality didn't mesh with the heavily distorted computer models and IPCC predictions, warming and natural disasters didn't occur at the alarming rates predicted.

Where are the hurricanes?

So it was modified to "Anthropogenic Climate Change". That way, any change in climate could be included in the alarmist dogma.

Now the new focus has shifted to "Anthropogenic Climate Disruption". This more firmly propagates the dogma that whatever impact humans are having on the earth's climate is negative. Any trend in climate whatsoever, warming, cooling, relative stagnancy, will be attributed to it.

Extreme weather events and natural disasters are immediately attributed to "Climate Disruption" by the alarmists - as if such occurrences are unprecedented in the history of the earth.

The heat wave in Russia this summer, for example, was immediately exploited by the alarmists as one more reason CO2 must be regulated by governments. However, it was later determined that CO2 had nothing to do with it.

And the only "solution" proposed by the alarmists is giving governments more power to control people.

If the science speaks for itself, why are we even talking about it? Why are there even questions about it?

If the claims of world-wide catastrophe and devastation are true and 100% proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, what possible incentive could there be for someone to challenge the AGW alarmist claims in the face of impending doom?

And more importantly, why would the only solution be giving more power and control over individuals to governments?

jg, I noticed that you often use Watts Up With That as a source for your comments about Global Warming issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

FT, why would you engage in a the logical fallacy of shooting the messenger? Some complaint about YouTube improperly enforcing copyright claims in no form or fashion invalidates scientific claims. Nor does "consensus" or any of the other diversionary measures attempted. Perhaps if proper counterpoints were put forward, they would be addressed, but seriously, your claim here amounts to, a website made a video about another website, and the one guy we give some cred to on that website that attempts to refute that other website still said the removal of the video we made was a bunch of nonsense.

Um.... actually all that stuff is the nonsense and none of it is science.

tm, Not only did I commit the logical fallacy of shooting the messenger, but I debunked and refuted some of the messages he was conveying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

What damage would occur if we make every effort to reduce the amount of emissions that we spew into the atmosphere? If you have kept track of some of my post on this thread, I have pointed out that we are loosing the ability of the earth to absorb the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses through deforestation and loss of coral reefs, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

First words have definitions and when you change those definitions, there has to be good cause and when there isn't, you have to be skeptical and truly investigate the claims.

Now most people readily admit that there are things we produce that are pollutants. They are not natural. They are synthetic and they have negative effects on the natural actions within this planet. However carbon dioxide is a natural part of the environment. It is not artificial. The same criteria that is used to justify it as a pollutant would also make water vapor from hydrogen cars a pollutant. That criteria is, we think there was this much in the air before we started doing this. There is more now. We are using some form or proto-science to project an outcome related to that difference, and now that difference and what causes it are bad.

FYI, we do call oil based fuels HYDROCARBONS and I've never once heard anyone attempt to deal with all the water we put into the air related to the use of it. This becomes even more interesting when you see most global warming models ignoring or dealing badly with water vapor.

Common properties of hydrocarbons are the facts that they produce steam, carbon dioxide and heat during combustion and that oxygen is required for combustion to take place. The simplest hydrocarbon, methane, burns as follows:

Every gallon of fuel we burn puts water vapor into the air. It puts more water vapor into the air than it ever puts CO2 into the air. Look at almost all climate models and see what they avoid like the plague... water vapor.

How can you give credence to something that ignores water vapor or doesn't account for it? It's well above half of the equation here.

Thank you for the chemistry lesson, brings back good memories of my college years in Organic Chemistry. The equations you put forth happens in a perfect world in a laboratory. Combustion in the real world of automobiles, trucks and factories is different. First O2 is only about 21% of the atmosphere. Along with the O2 component is NO2 and other nitrogen components, about 78% along with other minor gases making 1%. So you need to add in the nitrogen component into the equation. Also fuel that we burn is not pure hydrocarbons, fuel additives and impurities--that kind of stuffthe stuff that makes smog.

Along with this you have diesel engines in trucks, ships, power generating plants, etc. that generate particulate componentsie soot that is mostly carbon---remember the article on soot sometime back in this thread?

Also not all combustion is complete. Ever start a car on a cold morning, or is your car not tuned properly. Add in carbon monoxide and uncombusted fuel. More on combustion:

Incomplete combustion occurs when there isn't enough oxygen to allow the fuel to react completely to produce carbon dioxide and water. It also happens when the combustion is quenched by a heat sink such as a solid surface or flame trap.

For most fuels, such as diesel oil, coal or wood, pyrolysis occurs before combustion. In incomplete combustion, products of pyrolysis remain unburnt and contaminate the smoke with noxious particulate matter and gases. Partially oxidized compounds are also a concern; partial oxidation of ethanol can produce harmful acetaldehyde, and carbon can produce toxic carbon monoxide.

The quality of combustion can be improved by design of combustion devices, such as burners and internal combustion engines. Further improvements are achievable by catalytic after-burning devices (such as catalytic converters) or by the simple partial return of the exhaust gases into the combustion process. Such devices are required by environmental legislation for cars in most countries, and may be necessary in large combustion devices, such as thermal power plants, to reach legal emission standards.

Yes CO2 is a natural substance found in nature. However too much of it can cause problems. There is evidence that too much CO2 in the atmosphere can cause it to retain heat longer that lower atmosphere with a lower CO2 content. Just Google it or go back in this thread and don't ask me to prove it again.

There is some existing capacity to handle the some of the production of CO2:

Carbon Cycle

However if you exceed the natural capacity, the end result is increasing the amount of atmospheric CO2. Along with this, we are reducing the natural capacity to consume the CO2 through deforestation, pollution and loss of coral reefs and loss of marine organisms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

I have to admit that not all of the science out there is perfect. There are people writing articles that are poorly researched, are due to poor methods or conclusions, but the over all science out there supports that man has had an impact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

Zero impact shouldn't be the goal. We exist and live on this planet. We are allowed to have an impact on it. The goal of environmentalism used to be to manage our resources. Now the goal is to disappear.

No reasonable person believes in zero impact, however what's wrong with reducing our adverse impact? Reduce CO2 and methane emissions is possible in the long termso why not start now. If the science is wrong---and it isn't, don't argue about the merits of AWG, clean up the mess---what if their right and we reach the tipping point and we keep contributing to AGW?

Who said the goal is to disappear? Do you mean if we ignore the problems they will disappear?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FineTunes

Watts Up With That does not support many of his conclusions. I have been able to find science that disputes many of his claims. If you read the articles that are supported with data and are supported by other researchers, you should realize that Watt's science is flawed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman

Everything you've posted is people's opinions about whether a video should have been scrubbed from YouTube. That would be no different than me citing you on Huffington Post as proof of something. It is still hearsay. It is still opinion.

Quote:

The hearsay rule is a rule of evidence which prohibits admitting testimony or documents into evidence when the statements contained therein are offered to prove their truth and the maker of the statements is not able to testify about it in court. Hearsay is "second-hand" information. Because the person who supposedly knew the facts is not in court to give testimony, the trier of fact cannot judge the demeanor and credibility of the alleged first-hand witness, and the other party's lawyer cannot cross-examine him or her. Therefore, there is a constitutional due process danger* that it deprives the other side of an opportunity to confront and cross-examine the "real" witness who originally saw or heard something.

No tm, not all I have posted are from YouTube. Regarding Watt's Up, several of jg's post citing Watt have been debunked and refuted.

True, scientific articles are hearsay. One of the reasons why published scientific articles include methods and data is to enable other researchers to apply it to their research and to replicate the results. Another important part is peer review---I think that I covered this in another thread, but s Cliff or Spark Notes Version:

Quote:

Peer Review and Replication

Peer review is the checking of articles and scientific work by other scientists in the same field. *Without peer review it is not science, in other words peer review is an essential element of science. It is not optional; you cant claim to do science without it.* Replication is the repetition of one scientists experiment or study by other independent scientists to check the results.* It also is an essential element in science.*

Psychologist Keith Stanovich explains it this way:

Quote:

Scientific knowledge is public in a special sensescientific knowledge does not exist solely in the mind of a particular individual. In an important sense, scientific knowledge does not exist at all until it has been submitted to the scientific community for criticism and empirical testing by others. Knowledge that is considered special-the province of the thought processes of a particular individual, immune from scrutiny and criticism by others-can never have the status of scientific knowledge. Science makes the idea of public verifiability concrete via the procedure of replication. In order to be considered in the realm of science, a finding must be presented to the scientific community in a way that enables other scientists to attempt the same experiment and obtain the same results. When this occurs, we say the finding has been replicated It ensures that a particular finding is not due simply to the errors or biases of a particular investigator. In short, for a finding to be accepted by the scientific community, it must be possible for someone other than the original investigator to duplicate it

one important way to distinguish charlatans and practitioners of pseudoscience from legitimate scientists is the former often bypass the normal channels of scientific publication and instead go straight to the media with their findings. One ironclad criterion that will always work for the public when presented with scientific claims of uncertain validity is the question: Have the findings been published in a recognized scientific journal that uses some type of peer review procedure? The answer to this question will almost always separate pseudoscientific claims from the real thing

No, I am not really saying that. I said I don't believe CO2 is a pollutant. Are you really saying greenhouse gases are pollutants? Seriously?

In excessive quantities, certainly. Water is poisonous to humans in excessive quantities as well. Humans should watch their water intake when going far beyond the normal consumption. Humans should watch their C02 output when going far beyond the normal production.

For fuck's sake, when a huge volcanic eruption in Iceland REDUCES the amount of greenhouse gases being spewed into the atmosphere due to the grounding of air traffic across Europe, I think we have a greenhouse gas problem.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

In excessive quantities, certainly. Water is poisonous to humans in excessive quantities as well. Humans should watch their water intake when going far beyond the normal consumption. Humans should watch their C02 output when going far beyond the normal production.

For [unnecessary profanity] sake, when a huge volcanic eruption in Iceland REDUCES the amount of greenhouse gases being spewed into the atmosphere due to the grounding of air traffic across Europe, I think we have a greenhouse gas problem.

You have a point. Water vapor makes up a much larger percentage of greenhouse gases than CO2. Why has water not been designated a pollutant by the EPA yet?

There is evidence that the earth's atmosphere once contained greater amounts of CO2 than present, and that the climate was much warmer in the past.

With all due respect, FineTunes, you're repeating yourself. I acknowledge everything you have stated. But I disagree with you.

I am still not convinced that CO2 is a pollutant, that it has a negative impact on climate, and that governments must take extreme measures to regulate it. There are still too many questions that have not been answered in any conclusive way.

So you disagree that the amount of CO2 is increasing, sea levels are rising, temperature trends are increasing and glaciers are receding? Sometimes you don't need governments to take extreme measures to regulate it but you can start by not using your incandescent desk lamp and substitute an LED or CF bulbs. One can also recycle, use public transportation when possible, think green etc, before it becomes necessary for Big Brother to monitor your carbon foot print, your pollution and energy consumption index. Might even tax you if you exceed your base level.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

But note how the focus of the AGW alarmists has changed over this past decade. First, it was all about "Anthropogenic Global Warming". But reality didn't mesh with the heavily distorted computer models and IPCC predictions, warming and natural disasters didn't occur at the alarming rates predicted.

Where are the hurricanes?

So it was modified to "Anthropogenic Climate Change". That way, any change in climate could be included in the alarmist dogma.

Now the new focus has shifted to "Anthropogenic Climate Disruption". This more firmly propagates the dogma that whatever impact humans are having on the earth's climate is negative. Any trend in climate whatsoever, warming, cooling, relative stagnancy, will be attributed to it.

Extreme weather events and natural disasters are immediately attributed to "Climate Disruption" by the alarmists - as if such occurrences are unprecedented in the history of the earth.

The heat wave in Russia this summer, for example, was immediately exploited by the alarmists as one more reason CO2 must be regulated by governments. However, it was later determined that CO2 had nothing to do with it.

Quote:

Juliet: What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot, Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part Belonging to a man. O, be some other name! What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet;

WS/Romeo & Juliet

No matter what you call it, it still does not prove AGW false does it?

It is quite possible that the changes are more subtitle than expected---receding glaciers and snow packs, warming trends, spred of tropical diseases into temperate zones, etc. However the long term trends can be just as devastating. As for the drastic events that you say hasn't happened, doesn't mean that the science is wrong.

Kind of like living in California, it's not if, its when the Big One is going to happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

And the only "solution" proposed by the alarmists is giving governments more power to control people.

If the science speaks for itself, why are we even talking about it? Why are there even questions about it?

Then come up with alternative to having governments take charge.

Because people like you keep questioning and obfuscating the good scientific evidence, like evolution is a myth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

If the claims of world-wide catastrophe and devastation are true and 100% proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, what possible incentive could there be for someone to challenge the AGW alarmist claims in the face of impending doom?

And more importantly, why would the only solution be giving more power and control over individuals to governments?

If you believe that the alarmist are claiming pending doom, you aren't reading the same book.

Something like this, like it or not, will take global effort to reduce carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions along with the other toxic pollutants.

無心The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey